Friday, September 30

Dina Bousselham reminds García Castellón that she has an order to continue investigating the Police and not her

Without going through Judge Manuel García Castellón, the defense of Dina Bousselham has appealed, before the Criminal Chamber of the National Court, the request of the instructor of the Dina case so that the former collaborator of Pablo Iglesias for an alleged crime of false testimony. In addition, Bousselham has delivered a brief to the court in which he reminds García Castellón that while he intends to direct the case against her in a local court, the Criminal Chamber has just ordered him to extend the investigation in his own court, to find out if there are more involved in the Police Operative Deputy Directorate in times of the PP who participated in the dissemination of the data stored in the telephone, in addition to Villarejo himself.

In the aforementioned brief, to which has had access, Bousselham’s defense warns García Castellón that if he continues in his efforts to deduce testimony “against the victims”, the appellant herself and her ex-partner Ricardo Sa Ferreira, “it would mean facto a violation of the order to investigate the facts that has been agreed by the Chamber, which entails the resumption of this instruction.

Bousselham’s lawyer cites the legal argument of “lack of procedure” in the sense that the judge cannot attribute false testimony to his client if the trial has not yet been held, which is where the aforementioned crime can be committed. García Castellón considers that Bousselham lied during the investigation phase by changing his version of whether his mobile card was accessible or not after Iglesias returned it to him, after several months in his possession. The Prosecutor’s Office considers that they were “inconcretions” and “vagueness” that at no time affected the development of the case, in which two journalists and Villarejo are still charged.

“The instructor, imagining a future event (the content of the statements in court that my client and her ex-husband will give) deduces testimony against the victim and one of the witnesses”, collects the resource.

On the other hand, the injured party reminds García Castellón that the Supreme Court already rejected a year and a half ago the arguments of the appealed order regarding the alleged lack of procedure and also regarding the accusation of false complaint. It refers to the order in which the Criminal Chamber of the High Court rejected García Castellón’s claim that he charge the then-registered Pablo Iglesias.

Bousselham’s defense assures that the Supreme Court has already determined that the judge’s arguments “are full of assessments that are not solidly logical, from the indications that he indicates in the exhibition.” The Prosecutor’s Office and the Criminal Chamber have already ruled stating that the most feasible hypothesis of how Bousselham’s information reached various media outlets was through Villarejo’s “criminal organization” and not because Dina herself forwarded captures to third parties. In fact, as her defense recalls, there is published information about her cell phone that she never sent to anyone.

Garcia Castellon and Pro Lege

Regarding the appeal before the Criminal Chamber, Bousselham’s defense denounces the judge’s decisions regarding the popular accusation carried out by Pro Lege, close to the Popular Party. It is, he says, “an anomalous situation”, consisting, for example, of putting the “victim [la Audiencia Nacional ha reiterado que Bousselham es perjudicada en el caso] on an equal footing with popular accusations, whose appearance occurs automatically in all judicial processes in which members of Podemos are involved.”

“This is, without a doubt, a paradigmatic and extremely dangerous precedent for questioning the victim, to the point that, thus validated by the examining magistrate [García Castellón]who is supposed to be the main guarantor of the rights that assist him in accordance with Law 4/2015, of the Statute of the Victim of Crime, pulverizes them by participating in a serious secondary victimization”, adds Bousselham’s defense, which concludes that her client is being “revictimized by the judge.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.